Originally Posted by Mjölnir
You missed part of my point by just commenting on half my sentence. I said that this movie had a lot of scenes where the vertical space is important. Since vertical space was important they would have to get further away from the action to shoot the same thing in 2.35:1.The LotR trilogy didn't have that but instead had lots of focus on the width, which of course makes the AR perfect there.
Your question takes it too much to the extreme to be valid since both the AR we are discussing are defined as "widescreen".
Your example pictures don't work as an argument because you're just cropping the same image, which is not at all how you'd do it in a film. You are basically arguing against Pan & Scan, which has been abandoned for a decade. My point is that you use different AR for different kinds of shots.
But again, it's not even the AR in itself that makes LotR really epic. It's what they shoot and how they do it and there AR is just one of the parts. If you shoot a quiet drama in 2.35:1 it doesn't become epic. What makes it epic is size, and you can make it big in several different ways.
Well, I'm not sure what your point or argument is, since I've basically stated the same exact thing
as you did here -- that to get the same vertical shot (of the Hulk) in 2.35, they'd have to pan away... which is why a 1.85 makes sense for The Avengers. I "only" mentioned this in the very first, original post in this thread.
With regard to your LotR comment -- AGAIN, I said the same thing, i.e. that the aspect ratio was perfect for that movie because it captured the breadth/scope (as in, width) of it all.
Seriously, did you at all read (or comprehend) anything I said? You go through all this trouble of "arguing" your points seemingly against me, yet you basically restate everything I already said.
My whole point of this thread was to address what earlier critics had said about it being "not cinematic enough," that my guess is that they were referring to the cinematography facet of the movie, and NOT the actual film itself. The previous Marvel movies were shot wider in a larger AR; The Avengers is less wide and more square
in picture, which is why I think people referred to it looking "less cinematic" or more like TV.
I am NOT saying that it is not cinematic enough, I am merely saying my opinion as to why others may say it is "not cinematic enough." This is why I 1) referred to other people calling it "not cinematic enough" and 2) put "not cinematic enough" in quotations, to make it clear that it is not
my thought or statement.